New  York  City  Water  Front. 

LETTER  FROM 
SIMON  STEVENS 

TO  THE 

Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund, 

RELATIVE  TO  THEIR  POWERS  AND  DUTIES,  AND  THE  POWERS  AND  DUTIES  OF  THE  DOCK  AND  LAW 
DEPARTMENTS,  IN  THEIR  SEVERAL  RELATIONS  TO  EACH  OTHER  IN  REGARD  TO  THE 
IMPROVEMENT  OF  THE  WATER  FRONT  OF  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK. 

From  the  "City  Record,"  January  22,  1889. 


NEW  YORK : 
Martin  B.  Brown,  Printer  and  Stationer, 
49  and  51  Park  Place. 


i88g. 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


New  York  City  Water  Front. 

LETTER  FROM 
SIMON"  STEVENS 

TO  THE 

Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund, 

RELATIVE  TO  THEIR  POWERS  AND  DUTIES,  AND  THE  POWERS  AND  DUTIES  OF  THE  DOCK  AND  LAW 
DEPARTMENTS,  IN  THEIR  SEVERAL  RELATIONS  TO  EACH  OTHER  IN  REGARD  TO  THE 
IMPROVEMENT  OF  THE  WATER  FRONT  OF  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK. 

From  the  "City  Record,"  January  22,  1889. 


NEW  YORK : 
Marti jl  B.  Brown,  Printer  and  Stationer, 
49  and  51  Park  Place. 

1889. 


Ck  -»  Q   <a  j     A  *\  )t 


J 


FROM 

THE  CITY  RECORD 

(Offical  Journal) 

OF 

JANUARY    22,  1889. 
 ♦  »♦«♦»  

Extract  from  the  Minutes  of  the  Proceedings  of  the 

COMMISSIONERS  OF  THE  SINKING  FOND 

OF   THE   CITY  OF   NEW  YORK, 

At  a  Meeting  held  at  the  Mayors  Office,  at  I  o^ clock  P.M.,  on  Wednesday,  January  i6,  1889. 


Present — Hugh  J.  Grant,  Mayor  ;  Frederick  Smyth,  Recorder  ;  Theodore  W.  Myers,  Comp 
troller ;  and  Walton  Storm,  Chairman  of  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen. 
Absent — William  M.  Ivins,  Chamberlain. 

The  Comptroller  presented  the  following  certificate  of  the  appointment  of  Hon.  Walton  Storm 
as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Finance  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen  : 

Office  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen,  ) 
No.  8  City  Hall,  v 
New  York,  January  8,  1889.  ) 

I  hereby  certify  that  at  a  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen,  held  in  the  City  Hall,  in  the 
City  of  New  York,  on  Monday,  January  7,  after  12  o'clock  M.,  the  President  of  the  Board,  the 
Hon.  John  H.  V.  Arnold,  announced  the  Committee  on  Finance  for  the  year  1889,  as  follows  : 

Aldermen  Walton  Storm,  Chairman,  Gunther,  Noonan,  Cowie,  and  R.J.Barry. 

F.  J.  TWOMEY,  Clerk. 

On  motion  of  the  Comptroller,  the  Hon.  Hugh  J.  Grant,  Mayor,  was  appointed  Chairman  of 
the  Board  for  the  ensuing  year. 

On  motion  of  the  Comptroller,  Mr.  Richard  A.  Storrs  was  appointed  Secretary. 

The  minutes  of  the  meeting  held  on  December  27,  1888,  were  read  and  approved. 


4 


The  Comptroller  presented  the  following  communication  from  Hon.  Simon  Stevens,  relative  to 
the  powers  and  duties  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  and  of  the  Dock  and  Law  Depart- 
ments in  their  several  relations  to  each  other  in  regard  to  the  improvement  of  the  water-front  of  the 
City  of  New  York. 

Which,  upon  motion  of  the  Recorder,  was  ordered  to  be  printed  in  the  minutes. 

No.  6 1  Broadway,  New  York,  December  18,  1888. 

To  t/ie  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  : 

Gentlemen — 1.  By  invitation,  I  was  present  at  a  conference  held  at  the  Mayor's  Office,  Novem- 
ber 23,  which  was  attended  by  some  of  the  Sinking  Fund  Commissioners,  one  of  the  Commissioners 
of  Docks,  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation,  and  Mr.  James  C.  Carter,  Special  Counsel  to  the  City. 
The  CDnference  was  called  at  the  request  of  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation,  at  the  suggestion  of  the 
Mayor,  to  consider  the  recent  decision  by  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  what  is  known  as  the  "Kings- 
land  case"'  affecting  dock  property  and  their  values. 

2.  The  object  of  the  meeting,  as  stated  by  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation,  was  to  agree,  if 
possible,  upon  some  line  of  action  or  policy,  so  far  as  the  City  is  concerned,  with  a  view  to  arranging 
for  a  speedy  determination  of  questions  unsettled  by  the  Kingsland  case,  or  of  devising  some  way  by 
which  an  arrangement  or  settlement  with  private  owners  might  be  made,  by  the  City,  to  the  end  that 
the  Dock  Department  might  be  enabled  to  hasten  the  work  of  improving  the  water-front,  so  that 
the  City  could  derive  large  revenues  immediately  from  this  source  and,  at  the  same  time,  avoid  the 
delays  incident  to  litigation. 

3.  The  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  offered  a  resolution  providing  for  the  appointment  of  a  sub- 
committee, "  who  would  consider  these  questions  from  a  practical  standpoint  and  report  back  their 
"conclusions."  The  Mayor  and  Comptroller  agreed  that  the  suggestion  contained  therein  could 
not  then  be  acted  upon,  as  there  was  not  a  quorum  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund 
present. 

4.  From  this  moment  the  "  Conference  "  became  quite  informal.  The  extent  or  results  of  the 
decision  in  the  Kingsland  case,  however,  were  not  precisely  stated,  but  Mr.  Carter  recounted  his 
former  advice  to  the  City  authorities  as  to  the  proper  manner  of  procedure  in  future  to  acquire  posses- 
sion of  wharf  property  now  in  possession  of  private  owners  or  claimants.  He  stated  that  he  had 
advised  that  private  claimants  had  no  rights  under  their  grants,  except  that  of  wharfage,  and  claimed 
that,  as  the  City  was  the  proprietor  of  the  soil  outside  of  the  "wharves"  (probably  he  meant  bulk- 
heads), it  had  the  right  to  fill  in,  in  front  of  an  old  bulkhead,  and  build  a  new  bulkhead  wall  out- 
side, thus  gaining  title  for  the  City. 

5.  Mr.  Carter  reiterated  the  advice  he  formerly  gave  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund, 
and  urged  that  the  Dock  Department  should  seize  any  piece  of  property  it  desired  to  improve,  and 
attempt  to  go  on  with  the  work  of  permanent  improvement  of  the  water-front.  By  way  of 
parenthesis,  though,  he  admitted  to  the  Mayor  that  the  Dock  Commissioners  might  be  stopped  by 
injunction  obtained  at  the  instance  of  private  claimants. 

6.  The  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  asserted  that  there  were  now  pending  in  the  several  courts 
some  fifty-four  water-front  suits.  These  are  for  the  recovery  of  damages  to  private  property  on 
West  street,  where  the  City  has  already  made  improvements.  He  also  stated  that  about  one-half 
of  the  suits  were  "injunctions"  obtained,  some  years  ago,  to  restrain  the  City  from  proceeding  with 
the  work,  which  suits  still  remained  undetermined,  and  had  not  even  been  pressed  to  trial. 

7.  In  reply  to  the  Mayor's  inquiries,  Mr.  Carter  said  "it  would  not  be  advisable  for  the  City  to 
"  take  proceedings  looking  to  the  condemnation  of  rights  which  their  counsel  says  do  not  exist,  and 
"  which,  as  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  says,  would  be  giving  away  the  whole  case." 

8.  No  definite  conclusion  was  arrived  at,  notwithstanding  the  long  discussion  which  took 
place. 

9 .  The  Dock  Department  is  at  a  standstill  for  the  want  of  new  property  to  improve.  Shall 
this  deadlock  be  broken  and  the  water-front  be  improved,  or  will  you  still  drive  commerce  from 
New  York  ? 


5 


10.  Having  been  invited  to  the  conference,  I  took  with  me  my  stenographer.  I  now  have  his 
notes  written  out.  T  was  surprised  at  the  attitude  of  Mr  Carter  in  advising  the  City  officials  as  he 
did.  It  was  in  defiance  of,  or  in  direct  contravention  of,  the  laws  governing  the  Department  ot 
Docks  and  the  decisions  of  the  Court  of  Appeals. 

11.  With  all  due  respect  to  the  opinions  of  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation,  and  to  his  eminent 
Special  Counsel,  I  beg  to  submit,  for  your  consideration,  some  views  that  some  of  the  private 
owners  entertain  in  regard  to  their  rights,  as  advised  by  counsel.  They  do  not  think  that  an 
historical  statement  of  these  rights  will  "give  away  their  whole  case."  Consequently,  I  beg  you 
will  allow  me  to  state  the  source  of  their  belief  by  recounting  my  views  of  the  law  and  its  objects; 
what  the  Courts  have  actually  decided,  and  v.  hat  my  clients  assert  as  being  the  foundation  of  their 
rights,  and  the  rights,  privileges  and  duties  of  the  City  of  New  York  as  well.  I  will  first  give  an 
epitomized  statement  of  the  law  as  I  view  it,  for  I  take  it  for  granted  that  the  City  of  New  York 
does  not  desire  to  wrongfully  deprive  any  citizen  of  his  rights  or  property,  or  even  to  annoy  or 
embarrass  him.  I  suggest,  therefore,  for  the  consideration  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking 
Fund,  that  only  through  their  hearty  and  united  co-operation  with  the  Dock  Commissioners  can  the 
water-front  of  New  York  be  rapidly,  economically  and  satisfactorily  improved  by  the  Department 
of  Docks,  so  as  to  make  New  York  equal  to,  if  not  the  best  harbor  in  the  world. 

12.  The  Department  of  Docks  was  organized  in  1870.  By  subdivision  2  of  section  6  of 
chapter  574  of  the  Laws  of  1871,  re-enacted  in  chapter  410  of  the  Laws  of  1882,  it  was  given 
exclusive  charge  and  control,  subject,  m  certain  particulars,  to  the  approval  of  the  "Commissioners 
of  the  Sinking  Fund,"  of  all  wharf  property  belonging  to  the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  New  York, 
including  all  the  wharves,  piers,  bulkheads  and  structures  thereon,  and  waters  adjacent  thereto, 
and  all  the  slips,  basins,  docks,  water-front,  and  land  under  water,  and  structures  thereon,  and 
the  appurtenances,  easements,  uses,  reversions  and  rights  belonging  thereto,  to  which  the 
Corporation  is  or  may  become  entitled,  or  which  may  be  acquired  under,  the  provisions  of  this  law, 
or  otherwise.  The  Department  was  also  placed  in  exclusive  charge  and  control  of  the  repairing, 
building,  rebuilding,  maintaining,  altering,  strengthening,  leasing  and  protecting  the  property  and 
every  part  thereof,  and  all  the  cleaning,  dredging  and  deepening  necessary  in  and  about  the  same. 
The  Dock  Department  was  further  invested  with  the  exclusive  government  and  regulation  of  all 
wharves,  piers,  bulkheads  and  structures  thereon  and  waters  adjacent  thereto,  and  all  the  basins, 
slips  and  docks,  with  the  land  under  water  in  the  City  of  New  York,  not  owned  by  the  Corporation. 
But  the  Board  does  not  have  power  to  change  the  exterior  line  of  piers  and  bulkheads,  as  established 
by  law. 

13.  The  same  statute  provides  how  the  plans  of  the  whole  or  any  part  of  the  water-front  should, 
from  time  to  time,  be  prepared  and  submitted  to  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  for  their 
approval.  It  p.  ovides,  too,  that  no  wharf,  pier,  bulkhead,  basin,  dock,  slip,  or  any  wharf  structure 
or  superstructure  shall  be  laid  out,  built,  or  rebuilt  within  such  territory  or  district,  except  in  accord- 
ance with  such  plan  or  plans  ;  provided  that  the  Department  of  Docks,  with  the  consent  and 
approval  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund,  may,  from  time  to  time,  change  the  width  or 
location  of  the  piers  laid  down  on  said  plan  or  plans.  Care  was  also  taker,  and  it  was  provided, 
that  in  executing  the  plans  mentioned,  to  lay  out,  establish  and  construct  wharves  and  piers,  bulk- 
heads, basins,  docks  or  slips  in  the  territory  or  district  embraced  in  such  plan  or  plans,  and  in  and 
upon  or  about  the  property  owned  by  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the  City  of  New 
York,  without  interfering  with  the  property  or  rights  of  any  other  persons,  except  so  far  as  may  be 
necessary  to  insure  the  safety  and  stability  of  the  wharves,  piers,  bulkheads,  basins  or  slips  to  be  so 
constructed.  The  Department  was  authorized  to  commence  and  carry  on  such  construction  in  sections 
of  the  prescribed  territory  or  district,  from  time  to  time,  so  as  not  to  seriously  incommode  the  com- 
merce of  the  city.    (See  section  '/14,  chapter  410,  Laws  of  1882.) 

14.  The  work  of  such  construction,  unless  ordered  otherwise  by  a  unanimous  vote  of  the 
Board,  shall  be  by  contract  upon  duly  advertised  specifications.     [Ut  supra.] 

15.  By  section  715  of  chapter  410  of  the  Laws  of  1882,  the  Department  of  Docks  is  authorized 
to  acquire,  in  the  name  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  New  York,  any  and  all 


6 


wharf  property  in  the  city  to  which  it  then  has  no  right  or  title,  and  any  rights,  terms,  easements 
and  privileges  pertaining  to  any  wharf  property  in  the  city  and  not  owned  by  the  Corporation. 
The  Dock  Department  can  acquire  the  same  either  by  purchase  or  by  process  of  law,  as  therein 
provided.  The  Department  may  agree  with  the  owners  of  any  such  property,  rights,  terms,  ease- 
ments or  privileges,  upon  a  price  for  the  same,  and  shall  certify  such  agreement  to  the  Commissioners 
of  the  Sinking  Fund.  If  the  Commissioners  approve  of  it  the  Department  shall  take  from  such 
owners,  at  such  price,  the  necessary  conveyances  and  covenants  for  vesting  said  property,  rights, 
terms,  easements  or  privileges  in,  and  assuring  the  same  for  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty 
of  the  City  of  New  York  forever,  and  the  owner  shall  be  paid  the  price  determined  upon  from  the 
City  Treasury  as  therein  provided.  If  the  Dock  Department  shall  deem  it  proper  that  the  Cor- 
poration should  acquire  possession  of  any  such  wharf  property,  rights,  terms,  easements  or  privileges 
for  which  no  price  can  be  agreed  upon  between  the  owners  thereof  and  the  Department,  the  latter 
may  direct  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  to  take  legal  proceedings  to  acquire  the  same  for  the 
.Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the  City,  and  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  shall  take  the 
same  proceedings  to  acquire  the  same  as  are  by  law  provided  for  the  taking  of  private  property  in 
the  city  for  public  streets  or  places,  and  the  provisions  of  law  relating  to  the  taking  of  private  prop- 
erty for  public  streets  or  places  in  the  city  are  hereby  made  applicable,  as  far  as  may  be  necessary 
to  the  acquiring  of  said  property,  rights,  terms,  easements  and  privileges.  The  Dock  Department 
is  also  empowered  to  acquire,  in  like  manner,  the  title  to  such  lands  under  water  and  uplands  as 
shall  seem  to  it  necessary  to  be  taken  for  the  improvement  of  the  water-front. 

1 6.  Section  184  of  the  same  chapter  says  : 

"  The  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  shall  perform  the  duties  and  possess  the  powers 
"  with  reference  to  docks,  piers  and  slips  stated  in  sections  seven  hundred  and  twelve  and  seven 
"  hundred  and  fifteen  of  this  act." 

17.  I  refer  to  sections  716  10787,  inclusive,  of  chapter  410  of  the  Laws  of  1882,  instead  of 
quoting  them,  as  defining  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  Department  of  Docks. 

18.  Section  46  of  the  same  chapter  declares  that  no  expense  shall  be  incurred  by  any  of  the 
Departments,  Boards  or  officers  thereof,  unless  an  appropriation  shall  have  been  previously  made, 
covering  such  expense,  nor  any  expense  in  excess  of  the  sum  appropriated  in  accordance  with  law. 

19.  Section  143  provides  that  the  Comptroller  shall,  from  time  to  time,  when  directed  by  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund,  prepare  and  issue  bonds  of  the  city  to  be  called  "  Dock  Bonds 
of  the  City  of  New  York,"  signed  and  countersigned  in  the  same  manner  as  o'her  bonds  of  the  city, 
and  bearing  not  more  than  six  per  cent,  interest  per  annum,  and  redeemable  from  time  to  time,  but 
not  before  thirty  years  after  date  thereof,  for  the  purpose  of  raising  the  moneys  necessary  to  carry 
out  the  provisions  of  title  one,  chapter  fifteen  thereof,  relating  to  the  Department  of  Docks,  its 
powers  and  duties.  But  not  more  than  three  millions  of  dollars  of  said  bonds  shall  be  issued  in  any 
one  year,  and  none  of  the  bonds  shall  be  sold  for  less  than  their  par  value.  The  moneys  received 
from  the  sale  of  these  bonds  shall  be  deposited  in  the  Treasury  of  the  city,  and  shall  be  drawn  and 
paid  by  the  Comptroller  of  the  city  for  the  several  objects  and  purposes  provided  in  said  title, 
relating  to  the  Dock  Department,  its  powers  and  duties,  upon  the  requisition  of  the  Board  of  the 
Department  of  Docks*  countersigned  by  rhe  Commissioner^  of  the  Sinking  Fund.  The  expense  and 
compensation  of  the  Board,  its  rent,  the  compensation  of  its  appointees,  the  purchase-money  and 
damages  awarded  upon  the  acquisition  of  private  property,  the  payments  under  the  contracts  author- 
ized in  said  title,  and  for  work  performed  under  the  same,  and  all  other  expenses  and  disbursements 
necessarily  incurred  in  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  said  title  in  keeping,  maintaining,  repairing, 
building  and  rebuilding  the  wharves  belonging  to  the  Corporation,  in  dredging  and  cleaning  slips, 
shall  be  paid  out  of  the  moneys  in  the  manner  above  provided. 

20.  It  should  be  observed  that  the  statute  which  created  the  Department  of  Docks  gave  it  certain 
powers  and  privileges  and  imposed  upon  it  certain  duties  which  it  must  perform  with  the  co-opera- 
tion of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund.  The  same  statute  imposed  upon  the  Commissioners 
of  the  Sinking  Fund  certain  duties.  Section  184  declares  that  they  shall  perform  the  duties  and 
possess  the  powers  with  reference  to  docks,  piers  and  slips  stated  in  sections  712  and  715  of  the  same 
chapter. 


/ 


21.  The  entire  water-front  of  the  City  of  New  York  is  about  sixty  miles  in  extent.  The  title  to 
about  one-third  of  this  below  Fifty-ninth  street  still  remains  in  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Common- 
alty of  the  City  of  New  York.  The  wharf  rights  of  the  other  two-thirds,  or  say,  five-eighths,  have 
been  conveyed  by  the  City  to  private  persons,  who  now  hold  them  under  specific  grants,  with  certain 
covenants,  terms  and  conditions  expressed  in  the  grants,  which  the  grantees  or  their  successors  in 
title  claim  to  have  "  upheld,  maintained  and  kept,  in  good  and  sufficient  manner  and  condition." 

22.  Pursuant  to  chapter  574  of  the  Laws  of  1871,  elaborate  surveys  and  plans  were  prepared, 
after  much  study,  and  at  great  expense,  for  a  considerable  portion  of  the  water-front,  and  particu- 
larly for  the  improvement  of  that  part  of  the  water-front  on  the  North  river  between  Battery  place 
and  West  Eleventh  street,  and  on  the  East  river,  between  the  Battery  and  Corlears  Hook. 

23.  These  plans,  as  approved  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund,  contemplated  the 
widening  of  West  street  by  piling  and  filling  out  into  the  Hudson  river  for  a  distance  of  180  feet,  so 
as  to  make  the  street,  when  widened,  250  feet  in  width.  South  street  was  to  be  made  200  feet  wide 
in  a  similar  manner.  Substantial  bulkheads  of  granite  masonry  were  to  be  built,  and  likewise  new 
piers  of  greater  length  and  width. 

24.  Of  course  it  will  be  seen  that  the  carrying  out  of  these  new  plans  involved  the  demolition 
of  all  the  existing  piers  and  bulkheads  within  the  prescribed  limits,  whether  public  or  private,  and 
the  building  of  new  ones  in  their  places. 

25.  The  locality  selected  for  the  first  work  of  demolition  and  improvement  under  that  statute 
was  on  North  river,  between  Canal  and  West  Eleventh  streets,  a  distance  of  3, 318  feet,  including  the 
streets  which  belonged  t  >  the  City.  For  about  three-fifths  of  this  distance  the  wharf  rights  belonged 
to  private  parties.  The  Dock  Department  took  possession  of  these  about  the  year  1875,  without  the 
consent  of  the  private  owners,  and  without  compensation  to  them.  This  was  done  under  the  ad- 
vice of  the  then  Counsel  to  the  Corporation.  Not  till  1884  did  the  City  acquire,  by  purchase,  and 
settle  with  any  of  the  private  parties  for  their  wharf  property,  except  for  about  ninety-five  feet  three 
inches,  between  Charlton  and  Spring  streets,  out  of  a  total  of  about  two  thousand  feet,  between  Canal 
and  West  Eleventh  streets.  The  remaining  private  "  wharf  property  "  or  rights  between  Canal  and 
West  Eleventh  streets  thus  taken  and  not  paid  for  is  in  litigation.  It  has  been  thus  slumbering  for 
about  thirteen  years,  without  affirmative  action  being  taken  by  the  Law  Department  of  the  City  to 
attain  a  final  decision  which  would  serve  as  a  precedent  to  govern  future  action  by  the  Department 
of  Docks. 

26.  Referring  to  section  715  you  will  observe  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Dock  Commissioners,  if 
they  desire  to  acquire  a  piece  of  property  to  which  the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  New  York  has  then 
no  right  or  title,  they  must  negotiate  for  it,  and,  if  possible,  agree  with  the  owners  upon  the  terms  and 
conditions  for  its  purchase.  If  they  succeed  in  doing  this  they  must  certify  such  agreement  to  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund,  and  if  the  latter  concur,  the  Dock  Commissioners  shall  take  title 
in  the  name  of  the  Corporation.  The  same  must  then  be  paid  for  as  provided  by  law,  if  the  title  to 
that  which  is  purchased  is  good  and  sufficient.  It  is  provided,  however,  that  if  the  Dock  Depart- 
ment is  unable  to  agree  with  the  owners  upon  a  price,  and  the  terms  of  payment,  the  Department 
may,  in  that  event,  direct  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  to  take  proceedings  to  acquire  the  same 
for  the  City  in  the  same  manner  that  property  is  acquired  for  public  streets  and  places. 

27.  The  question  for  the  consideration  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  is,  whether  or 
not  the  Dock  Commissioners,  in  the  exercise  of  their  duties  and  functions,  have  made  a  judicious 
agreement  for  the  purchase  of  the  private  rights,  titles,  easements  and  privileges  belonging  to  private 
parties.  If  they  should  deem  the  purchase  advantageous  to  the  City,  they  will,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  approve  of  it  ;  if  not  so  regarded,  it  is  certainly  their  duty  not  to  approve  it.  The  law  seems 
tc  require  that  the  Dock  Department  shall  make  the  effort  to  agree  with  the  owners.  If  it  fails, 
then  to  take  the  alternative  of  directing  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  to  take  proceedings  to 
acquire  the  property. 

28.  Certainly,  the  three  Dock  Commissioners  are,  by  law,  made  the  judges  of  the  necessity  and 
propriety  of  acquiring  any  and  all  wharf  property  in  this  city  to  which  the  Corporation  of  the  City 
of  New  York  has  then  no  right  or  title.  In  the  exercise  of  that  right,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Commis- 
sioners to  examine  the  property  they  desire  to  purchase  and  make  every  investigaiion  requisite  to 


8 


acquire  a  full  and  true  knowledge  of  its  value.  After  satisfying  themselves  on  these  points,  they 
can  enter  upon  negotiations  with  private  owners  for  its  purchase,  but  always  with  the  understanding 
that,  in  the  event  of  agreeing  with  the  private  owners,  such  agreement  shall  be  subject  to  the 
approval  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  before  the  City  can  pay  for  it  and  take  title. 

29.  I  find  no  law,  written  or  unwritten,  save  the  "opinion  "  that  Mr.  Carter  gives  you,  that 
authorizes  the  Dock  Department  to  acquire  property  for  the  City  through  brigandage. 

30.  The  functions  of  the  Corporation  Counsel  are,  by  statute,  limited  to  questions  of  law  and 
modes  of  procedure — any  attempted  interference  with  the  duties  of  the  Dock  Department  and  Sink- 
ing Fund  Commissioners  in  fixing  values  is  simply  unwarranted. 

31.  The  Mayor  of  New  York,  the  Recorder,  the  Comptroller,  the  City  Chamberlain  and  the 
Chairman  of  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen  compose  the  Board  of  "  Commis- 
sioners of  the  Sinking  Fund."  In  reviewing  the  actions  of  the  three  Commissioners  of  the  Dock 
Department,  they  are  as  capable  of  forming  as  sound  a  judgment  of  the  true  value  of  any  property 
under  consideration  as  any  three  Commissioners  that  might  or  could  be  appointed  by  any  court  in 
proceedings  of  condemnation.  If  the  agreements  are  not  approved  by  them,  they  fall  to  the  ground. 
In  that  event,  the  powers  of  the  Dock  Department,  under  section  715  of  chapter  410  of  the  Laws  of 
1882,  are  exhausted. 

32.  In  1882  the  Dock  Department  selected  for  improvement,  on  South  street,  a  locality  on  the 
East  river,  next  south  of  Wall  street,  hoping  thereby  to  relieve  traffic  on  South  street,  and  benefit 
commerce  in  that  part  of  the  city.  Agreements  were  entered  into  with  the  private  owners  for  the 
purchase  of  their  interests  in  Piers  12,  13  and  14,  East  river,  together  with  that  in  the  bulkheads 
intervening  or  incident  thereto.  These  agreements  were  submitted  to  the  Commis- 
sioners of  the  Sinking  Fund  for  their  approval,  as  required  by  law.  Owing  to  technical 
objections  raised  by  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation,  notwithstanding  the  decision  of  the  Court  of 
Appeals  in  the  Langdon  case,  they  were  not  approved,  although  the  time  for  closing  the  title  was 
postponed,  from  time  to  time,  for  over  three  and  a-half  years,  by  the  Dock  Department  and  private 
owners,  at  the  request  of  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation,  to  enable  a  compromise  to  be  effected,  if 
possible.  The  Corporation  Counsel,  after  these  repeated  prolongations,  raised  new  points  and 
insisted  that  the  agreements  should  be  remodeled  so  as  to  apportion  the  total  value  of  the  wharf 
rights  or  property  by  placing  part  of  the  value  on  the  bulkhead,  part  on  the  piers,  and  part  on  the 
land  under  water.  The  private  owners  declined  such  apportionment,  claiming  that  their  interest? 
were  so  interdependent  that  no  apportionment  of  values  could  be  made  with  fairness  and  justice. 
Finally  it  was  proposed  that  a  "case  "  be  submitted  under  the  1279th  section  of  the  Code,  upon  a 
"  conditional  approval  "  of  the  agreements  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund.  This  last 
proposition  was  declined  by  the  private  owners  because  a  "conditional  approval  "  by  the  Commis- 
sioners of  the  Sinking  Fund  was  not  such  an  "  approval  "  as  would  give  the  "  case  "  a  standing  in 
court.    All  further  efforts  in  that  direction  were,  therefore,  abandoned  for  a  time. 

33.  In  1884,  the  Department  turned  its  attention  to  the  purchase  of  private  property  most 
desirable  for  its  purposes  on  North  river,  between  Hubert  and  Harrison  streets,  and  succeeded,  with 
the  approval  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund,  and  under  the  advice  of  the  then  Counsel  to 


the  Corporation,  in  acquiring  the  following  pieces  from  my  clients  : 

34.  From  Messrs.  Brower  Brothers — 100  feet  of  bulkhead  next  south  of  Hubert 

street,  at  the  rate  of  $600  per  front  foot,  for  say   $6o,oco  00 

From  C.  P.  Huntington— 50  feet  of  bulkhead  next  nortli  of  North  Moore  street, 

including  a  new  shed,  at  $650  per  toot,  say  for   32,500  co 

From  Charles  F.  Southmayd  —  87)^  feet  of  bulkhead  next  south  of  North  Moore 

street,  including  shed,  at  $635  per  foot,  say  for   55,562  50 

From  Messrs.  Skidmore — 87^  feet  of  bulkhead  next  north  of  Franklin  street,  at  $600 

per  front  foot,  say  for   52,500  00 

From  Messrs.  Clarkson — ioo  feet  of  bulkhead  next  south  of  Franklin  street,  at  $5oo 

per  foot,  say  for   60,00c  00 

Making  a  total  purchase  in  that  vicinity,  that  year,  of  425  feet  of  private  bulkhead  for.  $260,562  50 


9 


35-  The  same  year  the  Department  purchased  26  feet  6  inches  of  bulkhead  next 
south  of  Warren  street,  known  as  the  Drake  property,  at  $547  per  front  foot, 
or  say  for   $14,250  00 

The  two  parcels  of  property  were  also  purchased  between  Charlton  and  Spring 
streets,  heretofore  referred  to  as  having  then  already  been  filled  up  in  front  of 
by  the  Dock  Department,  at  the  rate  of  $550  per  lineal  foot,  including  release 
of  damages,  or  say  for   52,389  50 

Making  a  grand  total,  for  purchase,  in  thirteen  years,  of  private  property,  for  say. .        327,192  00 

36.  On  December  3,  1884,  in  view  of  contemplated  further  improvements,  the 
Department  of  Docks  applied  to  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  for 

an  issue  of  bonds  to  the  amount  of   1,950,000  CO 

37.  Under  this  application,  in  view  of  the  constitutional  amendment  which  had  then 
just  been  adopted,  limiting  the  issue  of  bonds  under  certain  circumstances,  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  only  authorized  the  Comptroller  to  issue 

bonds  to  the  extent  of   700,000  00 

On  April  3,  1885,  the  Dock  Department  had  to  its  credit  only   562,722  69 

In  June,  1885,  the  Department  applied  to  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund 

for  the  issue  of  bonds  amounting  to    2,coo,ooo  00 

38.  This  application  was  granied  in  July,  but  immediately  afterwards  the  Comptroller 
was  enjoined  from  issuing  the  bonds.  Thus  the  Department  of  Docks  was 
substantially  brought  to  a  standstill — the  injumction  holding  till  May,  1886, 
when  it  was  dissolved  by  the  Court  of  Appeals,  reversing  the  Court  below. 

On  April  30,  1886,  the  Department  balance  was  reduced  to   193,470  co 


39.  In  June,  1886,  after  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  the  case  of  the  Bank  of  Savings 
vs.  The  Mayor,  etc.,  in  relation  to  the  constitutional  limit  of  municipal  indebtedness,  I  called  upon 
the  Mayor,  Comptroller  and  Recorder  in  behalf  of  my  clients,  the  owners  of  private  property,  to 
make  inquiry  as  to  when  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  would  probably  act  in  the  matter 
of  issuing  "  Dock  Bonds"  for  the  use  of  the  Dock  Department.  Each  of  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Sinking  Fund  above  referred  to  replied  that  the  Dock  Department  should  again  officially  ask  for 
the  issuance  of  bonds  they  were  entitled  to  for  dock  purposes. 

40.  On  July  15,  1886,  the  Dock  Board  passed  resolutions  making  that  request.  The  Com- 
missioners of  the  Sinking  Fund  referred  the  application  to  the  Comptroller  for  examination  and 
report.  The  latter,  at  my  suggestion,  asked  the  Dock  Commissioners  to  submit,  for  the  information 
of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund,  a  statement  of  the  objects  and  purposes  for  which  the 
Department  desired  the  money. 

41.  In  compliance  with  the  request  from  the  Comptroller,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Department 
of  Docks,  with  the  aid  of  their  Engineer-in-Chief,  prepared  and  transmitted  a  memorandum  of  the 
objects  and  purposes  for  which  the  Department  of  Docks  needed  the  money  asked  for,  under  its 
resolution  of  July  15  and  22,  1886.  (See  the  list  referred  to  and  a  subsequent  list  on  file  in  the 
Comptroller's  office.) 

42.  Late  in  August,  1886,  at  the  request  of  the  then  Comptroller,  I  addressed  a  communication 
to  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund,  in  which  I  undertook  to  give  some  account  of  how  New 
York  acquired  her  water-front  two  hundred  years  ago,  and  under  what  laws,  rules  and  regulations 
wharves,  streets,  bulkheads  and  piers  have  since  been  built,  and  other  improvements  made,  and 
how  trade  and  commerce  are  now  crippled  in  divers  ways  for  want  of  additional  improvements  and 
facilities  which  the  Dock  Department  is  authorized  and  desires  to  make,  and  for  which  it  had  asked 
for  the  issue  of  bonds  as  provided  by  law.  That  communication  was  presented  by  the  Comptroller 
at  the  next  meeting,  September  17,  1886,  and  was  ordered  to  be  printed  with  their  minutes.  (See 
City  Record  of  September  22,  1886.)  At  the  same  meeting  the  Comptroller  presented  a  report 
recommending  an  appropriation,  and  a  resolution  was  accordingly  adopted  authorizing  and  directing 
the  issuance  of  S2,ooo,oco  of  Dock  Bonds. 


IO 


43.  Although  the  Dock  Department  applied  for  the  $2,030,000  of  bonds  in  July,  1886,  as  pre- 
viously asked  for  in  June,  1885,  this  application  was  not  acted  upon  by  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Sinking  Fund  until  the  17th  of  September,  1886.  It  was  not  until  the  12th  of  November  following 
that  the  Dock  Department  received  notice  from  the  Comptroller  that  he  had  sold  $5^0,000  of  the 
bonds  for  $517,577.50,  and  had  placed  that  amount  to  the  credit  of  the  Department  of  Docks. 
f^44.  As  that  money  was  shortly  to  be  available,  the  Dock  Commissioners  requested  my  clients 
to  submit  to  them  propositions  for  the  sale  to  the  City  of  certain  bulkhead  rights  or  wharf  and  pier 
properties. 

45.  Accordingly,  at  the  request  of  the  Commissioners  of  Docks  and  by  direction  of  my  clients, 
Mr.  Frank  Phelps  and  others,  I  submitted  a  communication  on  the  29th  day  of  September,  1886, 
enclosing  the  draft  of  an  agreement  under  which  they  would  sell  to  the  City  100  feet  of  bulkhead 
rights  on  West  street,  next  north  of  Beach  street,  including  a  release  of  damages,  for  $65,000. 

46.  On  the  same  day  I  submitted  a  similar  letter  on  behalf  of  my  clients,  the  executors  of  the 
estate  of  Moses  Taylor,  deceased,  and  others,  accompanied  with  drafts  of  agreements  as  requested 
by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Department  of  Docks,  in  which  were  stipulated  the  terms  and  condi- 
tions under  which  they  would  sell  and  convey  to  the  City  of  New  York  404  feet  6]/2  inches  of  bulk- 
head rights  on  the  easterly  side  of  South  street  not  owned  by  the  People  of  the  State  of  New  York  or 
the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  New  York,  together  with  their  respective  interests  in  Piers  12,  13  and 
14,  East  river.  This  property  is  described  as  commencing  at  a  point  on  the  bulkhead  where,  if  the 
line  of  the  northerly  side  of  Old  Slip  were  extended,  it  would  inter  ect  the  said  easterly  side  of  South 
street,  and  running  thence  northerly  along  said  bulkhead  in  front  of  and  opposite  to  store  numbers 
40,  41,  42,  43,  44,  45,  46,  47,  48,  49,  50,  51,  52,  53,  54  and  55  South  street,  and  in  front  of 
Gouverneur  lane  and  Jones  lane,  a  total  length  of  404  feet  6j4  inches.  The  price  was  at  the  rate  of 
$1,000  per  lineal  foot  front  of  bulkhead. 

47.  Upon  a  like  request,  I  submitted  a  draft  of  an  agreement  on  behalf  of  S.Charles  Welsh, 
executor,  etc.,  for  the  sale  to  the  City  of  seventy-five  feet  of  bulkhead  rights  or  wharf  property  on 
West  street,  next  north  of  Harrison  street,  at  $600  per  foot,  or  say  for  the  total  sum  of  $45,000. 

48.  All  the  above  propositions,  after  due  consideration  by  the  Dock  Commissioners,  and  much 
negotiation,  were  duly  accepted,  and  on  the  4th,  10th  and  17th  of  November,  and  the  17th  of 
December,  1886,  respectively,  under  the  715th  section  of  chapter  410  of  the  Laws  of  1882,  agree- 
ments in  the  name  and  by  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the  City  of  New  York,  acting 
by  the  Department  of  Docks,  with  private  persons,  were  entered  into  for  the  purchase  of  the  private 
wharf  property  on  the  North  and  East  rivers  as  therein  described,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund. 

49.  These  agreements  were  transmitted  in  due  time  to  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund 
in  compliance  with  the  law,  and  at  their  meeting  on  the  27th  day  of  December,  1886,  were  referred 
to  the  Comptroller  for  examination  and  report,  together  with  the  communications  from  the  Commis- 
sioners of  Docks,  transmitting  the  same,  and  of  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  in  relation  thereto. 
(See  City  Record  of  January  3,  1887. ) 

50.  They  were  as  follows,  viz.  : 

1.  Agreement  with  the  executors  of  the  estate  of  William  S.  Chamberlain,  deceased,  and 
the  heirs  of  George  A.  Phelps,  deceased,  for  the  sale  of  one  hundred  feet  of  bulkhead  on  North 
river,  between  Beach  and  Hubert  streets. 

2.  Agreement  with  the  executors  of  the  estate  of  Moses  Taylor,  deceased,  and  others,  for 
the  sale  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-four  and  one-half  feet  of  bulkhead  on  South  street,  between 
Old  Slip  and  Wall  street,  with  their  interests  in  Piers  12  and  13,  East  river. 

3.  Agreement  with  Edmund  H.  Schermerhorn  and  others,  for  the  sale  of  one  hundred  and 
eighty  and  one -half  feet  of  bulkhead  on  South  street,  between  Old  Slip  and  Wall  street,  with 

•  their  interests  in  Piers  13  and  14,  East  river. 

4.  Agreement  with  S.  Charles  Welsh,  executor,  etc.,  of  the  estate  of  George  W.  Welsh, 
deceased,  for  the  sale  of  seventy-five  feet  of  bulkhead  on  West  street,  next  north  of  Harrison 
street. 


1 1 

51.  From  December,  1886,  to  the  present  time,  no  report  on  these  contracts  has  been  made  by 
the  Comptroller,  nor,  as  far  as  I  can  learn,  has  any  action  been  taken  by  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Sinking  Fund  in  relation  to  them,  as  required  by  section  184  of  chapter  410  of  the  Laws  of  1882. 

52.  On  June  25,  1887,  your  Board  deemed  it  expedient  that  the  City  should  complete  its  pur- 
chase from  my  clients,  the  Old  Dominion  S.eamship  Company,  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  feet 
of  bulkhead  next  south  of  Beach  street,  at  the  rate  of  $6oo  per  lineal  foot  front,  or  for  a  total,  say  of 
$75,000. 

53.  It  would  seem  apparent  that  the  same  "expediency  "  or  necessity  exists  for  the  completion 
of  the  purchase  of  the  Welsh  and  Chamberlain-Phelps  properties  that  existed  at  the  time  of  pay- 
ment for  that  of  the  Old  Dominion  Steamship  Company. 

54.  This  "  Old  Dominion  Steamship  "  property  lies  between  the  Phelps  and  Welsh  properties. 
It  was  contracted  for,  and  an  agreement  for  its  purchase  made  under  precisely  the  same  conditions 
that  the  Phelps  and  Welsh  agreements  were  subsequently  contracted  for,  and  similar,  also,  to  the 
contracts  that  have  been  fulfilled  with  the  two  Browers,  Mr.  Huntington,  Mr.  Southmayd,  the 
Skidmores  and  Messrs.  Clarkson,  for  bulkheads  purchased,  between  Harrison  and  Hubert  streets. 

55.  Whenever  the  Phelps-Chamberlain  and  Welsh  contracts  shall  have  been  carried  out,  by 
the  approval  of  the  Commissioners  ol  the  Sinking  Fund,  the  Department  of  Docks  will  then  have 
acquired  one  continuous  line  of  bulkhead  on  West  street,  on  which  to  complete  new  improvements 
between  Harrison  and  Hubeit  streets,  a  distance,  including  streets,  of  920  feet,  at  a  total  cost  of 

S445.030- 

56.  For  more  extended  particulars  and  reasons  why  the  Dock  Department  desires  to  acquire 
the  Phelps-Chamberlain  and  the  Welsh  properties  specified  in  those  agreements,  I  refer  you  to  the 
correspondence  in  relation  thereto,  printed  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking 
Fund  of  October  7,  1887,  on  pages  166-170,  accompanied  by  a  map  of  the  properties. 

57.  The  contract  for  the  Dry  Dock  property  on  East  river  is  in  a  similar  condition.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  the  contract  for  the  purchase  of  fifty  feet  of  wharf  rights  on  North  river,  next  south 
of  Morton  street. 

58.  To  acquire  the  private  "wharf  rights"  on  any  part  of  the  water-front  there  must  be  a 
willing  and  hearty  co-operation  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  and  the  Law  Depart- 
ment with  the  Department  of  Docks.  Otherwise  commerce  will  continue  to  suffer  for  the  lack  of 
these  contemplated  improvements.  They  certainly  cannot  be  made  if  there  is  a  want  of  harmony. 
If  hearty  co-operation  is  given  the  Dock  Department  it  can  make  New  York  the  finest  harbor  in  the 
world,  with  suitable  piers  for  Us  commerce. 

59.  The  revenue  collected  by  the  Department  of  Docks  from  leases,  rents  and  wharfages,  in 
the  last  three  years,  has  far  exceeded  its  disbursements  which  have  been  principally  for  repairs  only. 
In  fact,  for  the  last  four  years,  permanent  improvements  have  been  nearly  at  a  stand-still.  In  conse- 
quence of  the  policy  pursued,  the  commerce  of  New  York  has  suffered  and  will  continue  to  suffer 
embarrassments  to  an  extent  much  greater  than  the  amount  of  money  involved  in  the  cost  of 
improvements. 

60.  If  the  contemplated  purchase  of  bulkhead  rights  on  North  river,  which  could  have  been 
made  at  the  rate  of  S600  to  S650  per  lineal  foot,  had  been  made  three  years  ago,  with  bonds  bearing 
interest  at  the  rate  of  three  per  cent,  per  annum,  the  City  would  be  now  in  receipt,  certainly,  of  from 
twelve  per  cent,  to  fifteen  per  cent,  on  the  cost  of  the  above-described  property  and  its  improvements. 

61.  The  question  has  been  raised  as  to  whether  the  City  could  acquire  wharf  property  from 
private  individuals  under  the  right  of  "  eminent  domain."  Therefore,  I  beg  to  state  that  learned 
counsel  have  advised  individual  owners  that  the  title  to  their  private  wharf  rights  and  property, 
which,  in  some  instances,  runs  back  nearly  two  hundred  years,  is  held  by  grants  for  public  use,  and 
that  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  New  York,  the  Legislature  does 
not  possess  power  to  simply  change  the  ownership  from  one  to  another  when  the  property  is  intended, 
after  the  change,  to  be  held  for  the  same  public  use  to  which  it  is  now  devoted  by  private  owners. 
It  is  a  question,  which,  if  raised  in  the  courts,  would  take  years  to  test.  In  the  meantime,  would 
it  not  be  well  to  make,  if  possible,  some  amicable  arrangements  at  reasonable  prices,  rather  than  for 


I  2 

the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  to  antagonize  and  disagree  with  private  owners,  who  declare  that 
they  11  want  nothing  but  what  is  right,  and  will  submit  to  nothing  that  is  wrong  "  ? 

62.  If  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  would  accompany  the  Dock  Commissioners  on  a 
tour  around  our  dilapidated  water-front,  1  think  they  would  find  scope  for  all  their  energy.  Few 
realize  the  loss  that  the  City  has  actually  sustained  in  the  last  ten  years  by  reason  of  the  "do- 
nothing  "  policy  that  has  prevailed.  Strangers  say  "  what  unsightly,  broken-down  piers  for  a  great 
city."  As  rapid  transit  has  built  up  New  Jersey  and  Brooklyn  at  the  expense  of  New  York,  just  so 
have  the  water  fronts  of  other  cities  been  developed  at  New  York's  expense.  The  loss  is  simply 
astounding.  The  valuation  of  Brooklyn  wharf  property  has  increased  within  ten  years  fully 
$40,000,000  and  that  of  Jersey  City  and  Hoboken  fully  $15,000,000,  two-thirds  of  which  has  been 
a  direct  loss  to  New  York.  Brooklyn  could  not  have  done  better  even  had  her  own  officials  been 
openly  in  control  of  the  water-front  of  New  York.  Some  of  her  citizens,  however,  have  shown 
remarkable  interest  in  these  matters,  and  their  counsels  seem  to  prevail,  and  prevent  improvements 
in  South  and  West  streets. 

63.  A  careful  examination  of  the  "  memorandum  list  of  properties  the  Dock  Department 
desired  to  acquire  and  improve  "  will  reveal  how  much  ought  to  be  done,  and  what  can  be  done  at 
moderate  cost. 

The  total  revenues  of  the  Department  of  Docks  since  its  organization  in  May,  1870, 

to  April  30,  1888  $15,361,306  32 

The  total  expenditures  of  the  Department  of  Docks  since  its  organization  in  May, 
1870,  to  April  30,  1888  (of  which  $607,327.85  was  for  the  acquisition  of  wharf 
property  and  the  value  of  floating  plant  on  hand,  $176,900)   13,629,069  63 


Excess  of  revenue  over  expenditure   $1,732,236  72 

65.  Probably  not  more  than  $3,000,000  of  the  expenditures  have  been  for  actual  permanent 
improvements,  the  balance  was  doubtless,  for  administration,  repairs  and  maintenance.  It  will  be  seen, 
therefore,  that  the  revenues  have  already  provided,  not  only  for  all  the  property  purchased  and 
Dock  Bonds  issued,  but  $1,732,236.72  in  excess. 

66.  If  you  were  to  inaugurate  anew  policy,  and  the  City  begin  by  annually  investing  $2,oco,oco 
for  ten  years,  in  permanent  improvements  on  its  water-front,  and  use  the  other  million  for  administra- 
tion, repairs  and  maintenance,  you  would  revolutionize  everything.  The  investment  would  pay  in 
every  direction.  The  money  could  be  secured  in  bonds  at  three  per  cent.;  the  improvements  would 
bring  to  the  City  a  net  revenue  of  not  less  than  ten  per  cent,  on  the  investment.  The  recognized 
policy  of  the  City  should  not  be  to  secure  the  ownership  of  the  entire  water-front  ;  one-half  should  be 
its  limit,  and  it  already  owns  about  one-third  to  three-eighths.  Such  an  investment  as  I  have  men- 
tioned would  be  sufficient  to  secure  and  improve  the  City's  half  of  the  water-front  on  both  rivers 
below  Thirty-fourth  street.  Private  owners  should  be  required  to  improve  their  holdings  on  the  new 
plan,  and  each  build  large  and  ample  piers  on  piles  and  stone  bulkhead  walls,  with  such  a  wide 
water-front  street  as  West  street  now  is,  between  Canal  and  West  Eleventh  streets,  on  the  North  river. 

67.  The  Dock  Commissioners  have  only  made  a  beginning,  though  they  have  been  striving  for 
sixteen  years  to  accomplish  their  mission.  They  have,  until  this  year,  done  comparatively  little  else 
than  repair  old  and  rotten  bulkheads  and  piers,  except  between  Canal  and  West  Eleventh  streets, 
where  the  result?,  commercially  and  financially  considered,  are  satisfactory.  They  have  not  been 
fully  sustained  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  or  the  Law  Department.  They  should 
not  only  be  in  full  accord  with  each,  but  there  should  be  manifest  energy,  thoroughness  and  intelli- 
gence united  to  carry  out  this  vast  improvement  so  much  required  by  the  business  interests  of  New 
York.  Yrou  have  the  power  to  give  new  impulse  to  this  policy  of  improvement.  The  Dock  Com- 
missioners and  the  Engineer-in-Chief  are  most  heartily  in  sympathy  with  these  views  and  are  doing 
ail  in  their  power,  with  their  present  means,  to  accomplish  their  mission  in  that  Department. 

68.  Who  should  be  held  responsible  for  this  state  of  affairs  ? 

69.  The  Department  of  Docks,  in  the  last  ten  years,  could  have  economically  acquired  all  the 


l3 


private  rights  and  improved  the  entire  water-front  on  North  and  East  rivers,  below  Twenty-third 
street,  and  now  be  in  receipt  of  a  net  income  profit,  over  and  above  the  interest  on  the  bonds  that 
woild  be  sufficient  to  pay  the  cost  of  private  property,  and  the  costs  of  its  improvement  every  twelve 
years.  Besides  this  direct  profit  the  improvements  would  greatly  enhance  the  value  of  taxable 
property  on  the  marginal  streets  and  vicinity,  and  give  shipping  accommodations  to  merchants  and 
traders  who  would  handle  millions  upon  millions  of  dollars  more  than  can  now  be  done. 

70.  A  vast  amount  of  property,  now  useless,  could  be  made  highly  valuable — a  wide  marginal 
street  on  North  river  and  at  some  places  on  East  river,  is  of  the  greatest  importance  to  merchants, 
warehousemen  and  truckmen.  There  are  upwards  of  $25,000,000  invested  in  truckage  in  New 
York.  South  street  below  the  bridge,  and  West  street  below  Canal  street,  are  so  narrow  that 
they  are  blockaded  for  hours  every  day  by  tracks,  which,  in  those  localities,  cannot  average  more 
than  two  loads  per  day.  With  streets  widened,  like  West  street,  between  Canal  and  West  Eleventh 
streets,  they  can  do  five  loads  per  day.  What  a  loss  to  that  industry  as  well  as  to  the  merchants, 
railroad  and  steamship  companies  !  This  loss  alone  is  greater  than  would  be  the  interest  on  a 
bonded  debt  that  the  whole  property  and  improvements  would  cost. 

71.  You  will  readily  see  what  that  loss  means  to  the  business  interests  of  a  city  like  New  York, 
where  minutes  are  dollars. 

72.  In  widening  out  these  marginal  streets,  one  hundred  and  eighty  feet  on  West  street,  so  as 
to  make  it  two  hundred  and  fifty  feet,  and  South  street  by  one  hundred  and  thirty  feet,  to  make  it 
two  hundred,  when  completed,  the  Dock  Department  could  utilize,  as  filling,  the  one  million  five 
hundred  thousand  cubic  yards  of  coal  ashes  and  cellar  dirt  that  is  now  emptied  into  scows,  and,  at  an 
expense  of  several  hundred  thousand  dollars  per  annum,  is  wasted  by  being  dumped  into  the  bay,  or  off 
the  mouth  of  the  harbor,  to  the  detriment  of  the  port  of  New  York.  Was  it  not  a  wise  provision  for  the 
commercial  interests  of  this  city  that  Congress  intervened  and  authorized  the  appointment  of  a 
supervisor  of  our  harbor? 

73.  I  shall  now  make  an  effort  to  show  and,  if  possible,  convince  you,  that  either  the  Counsel 
to  the  Corporation,  and  his  special  adviser,  or  the  Court  of  Appeals,  are  wrong  in  their  opinion  in 
relation  to  the  rights  of  parties  claiming  to  own  the  water-front  of  the  City  of  New  York. 

74.  I  cite  the  724th  section  of  the  Consolidation  Act  of  1882,  which  reads  as  follows  : 

"The  terms  'property'  and  '  wharf  property,'  whenever  used  in  this  title,  shall  be  taken  to 
"  mean  not  only  all  wharves,  piers,  docks,  bulkheads,  slips  and  basins,  but  the  land  beneath  the 
"  same,  and  all  rights  and  privileges  and  easements  thereto." 

75.  Mr.  Justice  Earl  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  the  Langdon  case  fully  defines  what  is 
"property  "  under  the  statute  ;  the  same  Court  reaffirmed  that  doctrine  in  the  Williams  case,  and 
asrain  in  the  Kingsland  case. 

76.  Mr.  Justice  Finch,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  the  case  of 
Williams  vs.  the  Mayor,  etc.,  maintains  "  that  the  State  had  granted  to  the  City  of  New  York,  by 
"  several  acts,  a  general  right  to  build  and  maintain  wharves,  piers  and  slips  along  the  water-front, 
«'  wherever  the  municipality  should  choose,  and  giving  it  power  to  occupy  and  possess  the  lands  of 
"  the  State  under  water,  so  far  as  needed  for  the  purpose  intended.  It  needed  no  authority  from  the 
"  State  to  erect  wharves  on  its  own  land  ;  what  it  did  need  was  a  right  to  build  them  on  land  under 
"  water  owned  by  the  State,  and  safety  and  protection  for  them  when  built.  *  *  *  That 
"in  1801,  to  the  City  was  given  the  grant  of  a  general  power  to  build  and  maintain  wharves, 
"  and  in  1806  the  right  was  granted  '  to  cause  piers  to  be  sunk  in  such  places  and  manner  as  they 
*■  1  should  think  eligible,  between  Whitehall  Slip  and  the  east  side  of  Exchange  Slip,  and  also  at 
"  '  their  own  expense,  to  cause  such  and  so  many  other  public  basins  to  be  formed  and  completed  in 
«'  'said  city  as  they  may  deem  necessary  for  the  trade  thereof,  and  to  take  to  their  own  use  the 
"  '  slippage  or  wharfage  arising  from  the  same.'  " 

77.  The  act  of  1813  was  broader  and  seems  to  have  been  a  substantial  re-enactment  of  the  act 
of  1801.  It  provided  "  that  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the 
"  said  city,  in  Common  Council  convened,  to  lay  out  wharves  and  slips  in  the  said  city  whenever 
"  and  wherever  they  should  deem  it  expedient.    The  authority  thus  given  being  commensurate  with 


14 

"  the  municipal  limits,  involved  a  grant  of  so  much  of  the  land  of  the  State  under  water  as  those 
"  wharves  would  occupy  if  the  City's  choice  of  location  required  such  appropriation.  This  right 
"  was  tantamount  to  an  ownership  ;  it  embraced  the  entire  beneficial  interest,  and  was  inconsistent 
"  with  the  title  remaining  in  the  State.  " 

78.  "  But  this  general  grant  of  authority  to  build  wharves  and  take  their  use  and  product 
"involved  another  right.  We  decided  in  Langdon  vs.  The  Mayor  (93  N.  Y.,  129)  that  a  wharf 
**  right  so  implied  a  right  of  approach  for  vessels,  that  its  grant  carried  with  it  an  easement  for  such 
"  approach  over  the  grantor's  land  under  water  lying  in  front.  The  act  of  1813  fully  recognized 
"  and  protected  that  easement.  It,  in  terms,  forbade  after  the  City  had  located  its  dock,  any  filling 
M  or  the  erection  of  any  structure  in  its  front,  and  so  by  its  own  act  incapacitated  itself  without  the 
"  assent  of  its  grantees  from  destroying  or  obstructing  the  easement  given.  So  that  when  the  State 
"  granted  to  the  City  wharf  rights  which  might  extend  into  the  deep  water,  covering  its  own  land,  it 
"  granted  two  things  :  property  in  the  land  covered  by  the  wharf  and  occupied  by  it,  and  an  ease- 
'*  ment  for  approach  of  vessels  in  its  front.  That  easement  the  State,  by  its  own  sole  action,  could 
"  not  take  away  or  destroy  without  awarding  adequate  compensation.  To  say  the  contrary  would 
"  be  to  declare  that  after  the  City,  under  its  authority  from  the  State,  has  completed  its  entire  system 
"  of  wharves  and  piers  at  a  cost  of  millions,  the  State  may  yet  destroy  it  all  in  violation  of  its  own 
M  self-imposed  prohibition  by  building  in  front  on  its  own  land  under  water  ob>tructing  docks  or 
"  walls.  " 

****** 

"  If  we  go  back  a  little  along  the  current  of  legislation  we  shall  find  in  the  Revised  Laws  of 
"  1813  the  reason  and  the  basis  for  the  assumption  and  the  language  of  the  act  of  1857.  By  the 
"  terms  of  the  earlier  act,  the  City,  already  authorized  to  build  wharves  where  it  pleased,  within  the 
"  corporate  boundaries,  was  further  and  expressly  authorized  to  compel  the  riparian  owners  to  build 
"  such  wharves  at  their  own  expense,  and  where  there  was  open  space  between  the  land  and  the  wharf 
"  to  require  such  proprietors  to  fill  up  and  level  at  their  own  expense,  according  to  such  plans  and 
• '  by  the  said  days  respectively,  the  spaces  lying  and  being  between  their  said  several  lots  and  the 
"  said  streets  and  wharves  ;  and  shall,  upon  so  filling  up  and  leveling  the  same,  be  respectively 
"  entitled  to  and  become  the  owners  of  the  said  intermediate  spaces  of  ground  in  fee  simple.  " 

79.  "Of  course,  if  the  City  was  the  upland  owner,  with  an  open  space  between  its  land  and  the 
"  new  wharf,  it  had  the  right  to  fill  it  in  and  thereby  become  its  owner.  By  this  act  the  State 
"  granted  to  the  City  and  to  the  upland  owner  the  right  to  fill  out  to  the  permitted  wharves,  and 
"  vested  title  to  the  new-made  land  in  the  adjoining  owners.  The  line  of  solid  filling,  therefore, 
"  permitted  by  the  State  was  exactly  synonymous  with  the  bulkhead-line.  When  the  City  was 
"  restricted  in  its  general  right  of  building  wharves  to  limits  within  exterior  lines,  it  was  natural 
"  equally  to  restrict  the  solid  filling  permitted  within  the  same  lines.  We  do  not  think  it  alters  the 
"  case  that  this  grant,  by  the  State,  was  to  persons  compelled  to  fill  under  the  terms  of  the  act. 
"  Where  the  City  itself  was  adjoining  owner  the  compulsion  became  a  privilege  or  right  ;  and  it  is 
"  quite  possible  that  as  to  the  citizen  a  similar  change  occurred.  We  may  infer  from  the  constant 
"  repetition  of  grants  that  what  at  first  was  a  burden  under  compulsion  soon  became  a  benefit  and 
"  was  sought  as  a  privilege  ;  and  so,  instead  of  the  compulsory  direction  of  an  ordinance,  the  City 
"  gave  the  same  direction  and  with  the  same  results,  by  the  terms  and  stipulations  of  a  grant.  And 
"  thus  we  discover  the  assumption  upon  which  the  Laws  of  1857  rested,  and  see  in  it  a  clear  recog- 
"  nition  by  the  State  that  its  removal  of  the  exterior  bulkhead-line  further  into  the  stream  carried 
"  with  it  a  surrender  by  the  State  to  the  City,  or  its  grantees,  or  the  upland  owners  of  its  land  under 
"  water  behind  the  new  wharves  whenever  they  should  be  constructed.  Why  should  the  State 
"  have  done  otherwise?  How  could  it  have  done  otherwise  unless  it  meant  not  only  to  throw  the 
"  necessities  of  an  enormous  commerce  upon  the  City,  but  to  hamper  and  obstruct  the  bearing  of 
"  that  burden  by  withholding  a  right  useless  to  itself?  And  so  I  reach  the  conclusion  that  the  State 
"  did,  by  its  earlier  acts  and  their  recognition  in  1857,  permit  solid  filling  on  its  lands  under  water 
"  within  the  bulkhead -lines,  and  by  that  process  part  with  its  title  and  transfer  it  to  him  who  law- 
"  fully  made  the  new  land  as  an  approach  to  the  docks.    And  this  view  is  further  strengthened  by 


15 


**  the  two  facts  that  the  State  has  seen  this  process  going  on  for  about  half  a  century  without  once 
"  interfering  or  asserting  a  hostile  right,  but,  on  the  contrary,  has  given  to  the  City,  whenever 
"  requested,  formal  conveyances  of  its  land  so  occupied." 

80.  While  speaking  of  the  grants,  the  learned  Judge  goes  on  to  say  : 

"  The  municipal  authorities  either  at  that  date  understood  their  rights  as  we  do,  or  else  perpe- 
"  trated  a  deliberate  fraud  upon  an  unsuspecting  purchaser.  " 

81.  "  Much  was  said  on  the  argument  as  to  the  rule  of  construction  applicable  to  grants  by  the 
"  State.    The  subject  was  fully  considered  in  the  Langdon  case,  and  need  not  here  be  resumed.  " 

82.  "  It  seems  only  necessary  to  add  that  \ve  do  not  view  the  grant  by  the  State  to  the  City  as 
"  without  consideration  and  purely  and  simply  a  gift.  The  State  owned  but  a  single  seaport  open 
"  to  commerce  and  touched  by  tide-water,  and  that  one  a  harbor  of  remarkable  size  and  con- 
"  venience.  Its  interest  to  concentrate  there  ships  and  cargoes  from  all  parts  of  the  world  by  pro- 
"  tecting  the  harbor  and  lining  it  with  docks  and  piers  was  very  great,  and  took  on  the  character 
"  of  a  duty  due  to  the  prosperity  of  the  Commonwealth.  It  early  imposed  that  duty  upon  the  City 
"  and  the  citizens,  by  whom  it  has  been  steadily  performed  at  very  great  cost,  and  one  in  the  future 
"  to  be  largely  increased.  Every  grant  the  State  made  was  in  aid  of  the  expenditure  involved  in  the 
"  performance  by  the  City  of  that  duty  and  in  consideration  of  that  performance.  Little  enough 
"  of  its  own  duty  has  been  borne  by  the  Slate,  and  to  call  that  little  a  pure  gratuity  amounts  to 
"  sarcasm." 

83.  "The  act  organizing  that  department  will,  and  was  intended  to,  change  entirely  the  water- 
"  front  system  of  the  city.  Upon  the  new  line  the  municipality  is  to  build  all  docks  and  wharves 
"  and  piers,  and  own  them  all,  and  the  old  plan  of  wharves  and  piers  owned  by  individuals  is  to  be 
"  swept  away.  But  by  the  act,  the  rights  of  private  owners  are  respected  and  there  is  not  in  it  a 
"  word  or  line  of  meditated  spoliation.  The  wharf  property  of  citizens  may  be  taken,  but  must  be 
"  paid  for  fairly  and  in  the  ordinary  manner.  " 

84.  The  same  learned  Judge  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  Court  in  the  Kingsland  case, 
argued  by  the  same  counsel,  says  : 

"  We  have  already  determined  that  the  destruction  of  the  wharf  rights  belonging  to  private 
"  owners,  consequent  upon  the  construction  by  the  City,  under  the  act  of  1871,  of  an  exterior  line 
' 1  of  docks  owned  and  controlled  by  the  municipality,  involved  the  necessity  of  compensation  to 
"  such  owners  for  the  property  rights  thus  taken  away  (Langdon  vs.  Mayor,  93  N.  Y.,  129  ;  Williams 
"  vs.  Mayor,  105  N.  Y.,  419).  What  shall  be  the  measure  and  basis  of  that  compensation  is  the 
' '  question  now  presented,  and  in  a  form  which  excludes  damages  for  a  tort  or  redress  for  a  wrong, 
"  but  treats  the  case  solely  as  one  in  which  the  City  takes,  by  right  of  eminent  domain,  the  private 
"  property  destroyed,  and  is  simply  bound  to  pay  the  fair  and  just  value  of  what  is  taken.  The 
"  parties  litigant  disagree  widely  as  to  that  value,  and  mainly  because  certain  privileges  and  inci- 
"  dental  conveniences  have  become  associated  with  the  wharf  rights  as  owned  and  possessed,  and 
"  have  added  enormously  to  the  prices  along  the  water-front." 

85.  "Originally,  as  we  have  elsewhere  said,  the  duty  of  building  wharves  and  exterior  streets 
"  and  filling  out  to  them  was  imposed  upon  the  riparian  owners,  and  was,  perhaps,  for  a  time, 
"  more  of  a  burden  thau  a  benefit,  since  such  owner  gained  no  exclusive  rights  in  the  wharf  at  his 
"  water  front  beyond  that  of  the  sums  payable  as  wharfage,  cranage  and  dockage  by  the  vessels 
"  enjoying  its  use.  The  wharf  or  exterior  street  was  a  public  wharf,  open  to  the  commerce  of  the 
"  port  and  the  free  passage  of  the  people,  and  authority  to  incumber  it  was  only  wanting  from  its 
"inherent  nature  and  character;  but  any  such  incumbrance  was  positively  forbidden  by  statute. 
"  Nevertheless,  the  needs  and  convenience  of  commerce,  and  the  persistent  encroachments  of 
"  private  interest  gradually  pushed  aside  the  prohibition  of  the  law,  or  modified  its  restraints  by 
11  new  legislation.  Lines  of  steamers  sought  and  obtained  exclusive  privileges  at  particular  wharves, 
"  paying  rentals  therefor,  which  steadily  grew  to  very  large  amounts." 

****** 

86.  "  Of  course,  this  reservation  of  a  public  right  was  rather  formal  than  real,  and  the  pref- 
"  erential  use  became  in  fact  an  exclusive  use,  since  the  lessee  would  be  sure  always  to  need  the 


i6 


*•  dock  facilities,  and  the  public  would  avoid  a  wharf  from  which  they  were  liable,  at  any  moment, 
"to  be  removed.  This  privilege  of  exclusive  use  was  a  governmental  regulation,  indicating  a 
"  settled  and  permanent  policy,  and  over  which  the  City  has  no  control.  It  necessarily  added 
"  value  to  every  bulkhead  or  pier  which  the  steam  commerce  of  the  port  desired  to  lease  and  occupy, 
M  f>r  it  gave  that  commerce  a  permanent  home  at  the  water-front,  and  secured  to  it  undisturbed 
"facilities  for  the  transaction  of  its  business.  Previous  legislation  had  gone  no  further  than  to 
"  permit  the  assignment  of  classes  of  vessels  to  specific  localities,  but  leaving  their  rights  at  such 
"  points  equal  and  without  preference." 

87.  After  duly  considering  the  "  evidence  "  and  the  "  points  "  made  by  appellant  and  respondent 
in  regard  to  the  rights  of  the  City,  as  well  as  of  those  of  the  individuals,  the  learned  justice  pro- 
ceeds in  these  words:  "Our  investigation  thus  far  discloses  that  the  plaintiff,  as  owner  of  his 
"  wharf  right,  was  entitled  to  the  wharfage  which  it  yielded  and  such  added  value  as  its  privilege 
"  of  preferential  use  when  leased  to  the  adjoining  steamboat  line  would  give  it,  but  beyond  that  had 
"  no  other  right  as  incident  to  his  ownership.  Neither  he  nor  his  lessees  had  any  right  to  the  plat- 
"  fjrm  or  the  shed  upon  it,  and  could  be  stripped  of  both  at  any  moment  by  an  appeal  to  the  law, 
"  or  without  that  by  a  revocation  on  the  part  of  the  City. 

88.  "  That  revocat  on  came.  The  City  acted  under  the  law  of  1871  by  adopting  apian  which 
"  involved  the  termination  of  all  private  ownership  of  docks  and  wharves  and  the  construction  of  a 
"  new  outer  line.  The  improvement  finally  reached  Charlton  street.  The  municipality  directed 
"  the  removal  of  the  platform  and  shed  in  front  of  plaintiff's  bulkhead,  and  by  that  direction  and  the 
"  action  taken  under  it  effectually  revoked  plaintiff's  license,  if  that  needed  to  be  revoked,  which  was 
* '  never  lawful  at  all  and  never  had  any  right  behind  it.  The  City  also  constructed  a  new  bulkhead  in 
"  front  of  plaintiff's  wharf,  cutting  the  latter  off  from  the  water  and  destroying  access  by  solid  filling. 
"  By  this  latter  process  it  took  plaintiff's  wharf  right  with  its  lawful  incidents,  and  if  the  judgment 
"  which  he  recovered  had  embraced  no  more  than  the  value  of  that  we  should  affirm  it  without 
"  hesitation.    But  much  more  than  that  was  allowed." 

****** 

89.  "  It  must  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  subject  of  valuation  is  not  physical  and  tangible  property 
' '  which  can  be  measured  or  weighed,  but  an  incorporeal  right  which  can  only  exist  by  force  of  the 
"law  and  under  its  shelter  (Langdon  vs.  Mayor,  supra),  and  can  never  be  more  than  that  law 
"  creates  or  sanctions.  The  City  took  and  was  required  to  pay  for  such  an  incorporeal  right,  and 
"  its  extent  or  value  cannot  be  broadened  or  increased,  because  its  situation  furnished  convenient 
"  opportunity  to  commit  a  trespass  or  maintain  a  nuisance.  Compensation  was  to  be  made  for  a 
"  wharf  right,  not  for  a  wharf  wrong  ;  for  what  the  law  authorized  and  recognized,  not  for  what  it 
"  iorbade  and  condemned.  The  City  did  not  take  from  the  plaintiff  the  right  to  build  a  platform 
"  beyond  the  bulkhead-line  and  maintain  a  shed  upon  it,  since  he  never  had  any  such  right  to  be 
"  taken  away.  It  never  had  an  existence.  It  stood  only  upon  sufferance,  and  the  sufferance  had 
"  ended.  Adding  the  value  of  the  wharf  right  with  its  lawful  incident  of  preferential  use  by  taking 
"into  account  an  unlawful  platform  and  shed,  and  the  chance  of  maintaining  it  unmolested  is 
"  giving  to  the  property  as  an  element  of  increased  value  its  convenient  situation  for  violating  the 
"  law,  and  capitalizing  the  existing  and  expected  profits  of  that  violation." 

****** 

90.  "  When  the  City  acted,  its  inevitable  result  was  two-fold.  It  operated  to  destroy  the  wharf 
"  right  which  the  plaintiff  owned,  and  to  that  extent  took  from  him  hi?  property.  It  operated  also  as  a 
"  revocation  of  the  license  or  privilege  given.  The  value  of  the  one  the  City  was  bound  to  pay  ;  the 
"  value  of  the  other  it  was  not  bound  to  pay.  It  could,  as  it  did,  revoke  the  license  by  removing  or 
"  directing  the  removal  of  the  platform  and  shed  without  the  least  responsibility  for  the  resulting 
"injury.  That  the  taking  and  revocation  happened  at  the  same  time,  cannot  alter  the  inherent 
"  character  of  either." 

****** 

91.  "  We  are  thus  required  to  say  that  the  referee  erred  in  allowing,  as  an  element  of  value,  the 
"  existing  platform  and  shed,  and  the  chance  of  maintaining  it  in  future,  and  so  the  reversal  by  the 


17 

"  General  Term  was  right.  But  we  do  not  hold  that  the  wharf-owner  is  entitled  only  to  the  capital- 
ized value  of  his  wharfage  and  cranage,  for  the  law  has  attached  to  his  bulkhead  a  right  of 
"preferential  use  by  steamship  lines,  and  this  bulkhead  adjacent  to  a  steamship  pier,  and  in  a 
"  desirable  part  of  the  harbor  may  have  possessed  a  serious  increment  of  value  resulting  from  that 
"incident.  For  that  value,  honestly  ascertained  and  fairly  measured,  the  wharf-owner  should 
"recover,  but  not  for  any  value  resulting  from  his  platform  and  shed." 

92.  "The  judgment  of  the  General  Term  should  be  affirmed  with  costs,  and  judgment  absolute 
"  for  the  defendants  be  rendered  on  the  stipulation. 

"All  concur,  except  Ruger,  Ch.  J.,  and  Gray,  J.,  dissenting." 

93.  The  above  opinion  was  delivered  early  in  November  last,  but  later  in  the  month  the 
remittitur  was  recalled,  and  on  motion,  leave  was  granted  to  withdraw  the  stipulation  for  judgment 
absolute,  as  given,  and  the  case  was  sent  back  for  a  new  trial  upon  the  principles  as  to  compensation 
laid  down  by  the  court  in  its  opinion. 

94.  When  that  new  trial  will  take  place  no  one  living  can  tell.  Had  the  case  gone  to  anew 
trial  from  the  General  Term  instead  of  going  to  the  Court  of  Appeals,  evidence  only  of  statutory 
wharfage  could  have  been  admitted.  Now,  under  the  new  rulings,  advantage  of  location,  together 
with  other  incidents  may  be  admitted  as  increments  of  value,  of  whatever  "  wharf  property  "  may 
be  taken,  whether  bulkheads,  piers,  docks,  wharves,  basins  or  slips.  When  the  case  does  go  before 
a  jury,  the  probabilities  are  that  very  much  increased  damages  will  be  awarded  the  Kingslands. 

95.  The  724th  section  of  the  Consolidation  Act,  declaring  what  is  "  wharf  property,"  has  not 
been  declared  unconstitutional  by  the  Court  of  Appeals,  nor  does  the  court  set  aside  the  715th  section,, 
which  declares  in  what  manner  the  Dock  Department  may  acquire  any  "wharf  property  "  that  it 
may  desire.  Only  two  modes  of  procedure  are  authorized  by  law.  One  is  by  negotiation  and 
agreement  to  purchase  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund,  the 
other  is  by  proceedings  of  condemnation  under  the  right  of  eminent  domain,  whenever  the  Depart- 
ment of  Docks  directs  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  to  take  such  proceedings. 

96.  I  have  shown  that  certain  duties  are,  by  law,  devolved  on  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Sinking  Fund,  in  one  event,  and  in  the  other,  upon  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation.  Has  either 
alternative  been  availed  of  within  the  last  two  years  ? 

97.  I  am  not  aware  that  the  Sinking  Fund  Commissioners  have  acted  upon  either  of  the  four 
agreements  heretofore  referred  to  them  by  the  Dock  Department  for  approval — nor  has  the  Corpora- 
tion Counsel  commenced  proceedings  of  condemnation  in  certain  cases  as  directed  by  the  Depart- 
ment of  Docks.  Instead  of  doing  what  the  Dock  Department  has  directed,  he  excuses  himself  by 
saying  that  the  private  owners  of  piers  have  no  interest  to  condemn,  therefore,  to  "take  proceed- 
ings" would  be  to  concede  that  there  were  private  ownerships  in  pier  property  to  condemn,  "that 
would  be  giving  their  case  away."  He,  as  well  as  the  Special  Counsel,  persists  in  recommending 
the  Dock  Department  to  seize  whatever  private  piers  it  desires  to  acquire  for  the  City's  use  without 
compensation  to  the  private  owners.  May  not  this  recommendation  of  my  learned  friend  subject 
him  to  the  same  criticism  which  was  made  by  Mr.  Justice  Finch  on  some  of  his  points  raised  in  the 
Williams  case  that  were  then  characterized  as  "sarcasm  "  ? 

98.  Mr.  Tweed  held  an  important  office,  was  indicted,  convicted  and  sentenced  to  imprison- 
ment, not  for  stealing,  but  for  omitting  or  neglecting  to  audit  certain  bills  or  claims,  the  duty  to  do 
which  was  devolved  upon  him  by  law. 

99.  Have  not  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  and  the  present  Counsel  to  the  Corpora- 
tion made  themselves  amenable  to  the  penalties  of  the  same  law,  by  neglecting,  or  omitting  to 
perform  certain  specific  duties  that  had  been  devolved  upon  them  by  law  ? 

100.  The  subjoined  letter  and  its  enclosure  gives  the  volume  and  value  of  the  foreign  trade  of 
*New  York.  You  will  observe  that  the  falling-off  in  total  tonnage  entered,  and  the  total  cleared,  has, 
in  the  last  five  years,  been  something  over  1,000,000  tons  less  per  annum  than  it  was  in  any  one  of 
the  previous  five  years.  Is  not  this,  to  a  very  great  extent,  owing  to  a  lack  of  increase  in  wharf 
accommodations  ?  New  ships  of  greater  length,  beam  and  draft  are  now  being  built  in  Europe  for 
trade  with  New  York.  Shall  we  try  to  accommodate  them  or  shall  we  still  continue  to  pay  out  in 
litigation,  a  larger  amount  than  it  would  cost  to  purchase  the  private  rights  now  in  dispute. 


i8 


(Copy.) 

Treasury  Department — Bureau  of  Statistics,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  December  7,  1888.  j 

Mr.  Simon  Stevens,  No.  61  Broadway,  New  York  City  : 

Sir — In  reply  to  yours  of  the  4th  instant,  I  have  to  state  that  the  amounts  of  customs  revenue 
collected  at  the  port  of  New  York  during  the  year  ending  June  30,  1888,  were  as  follows  : 


Duties  on  imports   $144,426,519  94 

Tonnage  duties  t   205,29492 

Total   $144,631,914  86 

Duties  on  imports  from  all  sources   $218,599,867  37 

Tonnage  duties   491,306  26 

Total   $219,091,173  63 


The  per  cent,  of  duties  on  imports  (excluding  tonnage  duties)  collected  at  New  York  was 
sixty-six  per  cent,  of  such  duties  collected  in  the  entire  country. 

A  table  is  enclosed  showing  the  entrances  and  clearances  of  sailing  and  steam  vessels  engaged 
in  the  foreign  trade  at  the  port  of  New  York  each  year  from  1879  to  1888.  There  are  no  statistics 
of  domestic  entrances  and  clearances. 

This  office  has  no  information  as  to  the  draft  of  steamers  entering  and  clearing  at  the  port  of 
New  York.  You  can  procure  such  data  without  doubt  at  the  New  York  Custom  House  or  from  the 
steamship  companies. 

Respectfully,  yours, 
(Signed)  WILLIAM  F.  SWITZLER,  Chief  of  Bureau. 

(Copy.) 

Statement  showing  the  number  and  tonnage  of  Sailing  and  Steam  Vessels  in  the  foreign  trade, 
which  entered  into  and  cleared  from  the  Port  of  New  York  during  each  year  ending  June  30, 
from  1879  to  1888  (ten  years) . 


Years. 

• 

Entered. 

sail. 

STEAM. 

TOTAL. 

Number. 

Tons. 

Number. 

Tons. 

Number. 

Tons. 

1879  

6,171 

3,031,226 

1.397 

3,630,599 

7.568 

6,666,825 

6,454 

3,3I3.274 

1,687 

4,298,008 

8,141 

7,611,282 

5.243 

2,667,391 

1,914 

4,839>I3i 

7.157 

7,506,522 

4,622 

2,261,658 

1.903 

5,099,185 

6,525 

7,360,843 

1883  

4.332 

2,090,991 

1,920 

4.357.846 

6,252 

6,448,837 

1884  

4.103 

2,019,101 

I,963 

3.639.770 

6,066 

5,658,871 

1885  

3,7i9 

1,851,986 

2,105 

3.8o7,747 

5.824 

5,659.733 

1886  

3.685 

1,858,834 

2,034 

3,700,104 

5.719 

5,558,938 

1887  

3,740 

1,989,599 

2,251 

4.097.5" 

5.99i 

6,087,110 

3.196 

1,674.366 

2,165 

4,009,915 

5,36i 

5.683.371 

19 


Cleared. 


Years. 

SAIL. 

STEAM. 

TOTAL. 

Number. 

Tons. 

Number. 

Tons. 

Number. 

Tons. 

5.565 

2,776,987 

1.392 

3,627,860 

6  957 

6,404,847 

5.687 

3,086,722 

1,697 

4,343,080 

7.384 

7,429,802 

4.984 

2,632,754 

1.943 

4.880,854 

6,927 

7,513,608 

4.253 

2,102,677 

1,927 

5,160,497 

6,180 

7.263.174 

4,018 

2,029,829 

1,859 

4,297,861 

5.877 

6,327,690 

3,622 

L  845,030 

1,914 

3.578,928 

5.536 

5,423.958 

1885  

3.235 

1,680,295 

2,069 

3,760,429 

5.304 

5,440,724 

1886  

3»*34 

1,683,721 

2,026 

3,704,614 

5,160 

5.388,335 

1887  

3.056 

1.693,880 

2,215 

4,085,811 

5.271 

5,779,691 

1888  

2,700 

L5I7.883 

2,157 

4.C29.559 

4.857 

5.547.442 

(Signed)  WM.  F.  SWITZLER,  Chief  of  Bureau. 

Treasury  Department — Bureau  of  Statistics,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  December  10,  1888.  j 


101.  I  have  from  the  New  York  Custom  House,  under  date  of  December  12,  a  report  of  the 
number  of  vessels  engaged  in  coastwise  trade  entered  and  cleared  from  this  port,  monthly,  from 
July  1,  1884,  to  June  30,  1888.  It  shows  the  total  entrances  in  that  time  to  have  been  7,953,  and 
the  total  clearances  in  the  same  time  12,888. 

102.  I  am  given  to  understand,  however,  that  the  list  furnished  does  not  include  a  large 
number  of  vessels  engaged  in  trade  between  domestic  ports  which  are  not  obliged  to  enter  or  clear. 

103.  In  view  of  what  I  have  said,  the  importance  of  having  the  water-front  improved  either  by 
the  City's  acquiring  all  or  part  of  the  private  "  wharf  property  "  or  by  compelling  private  owners  to 
improve  their  holdings,  even  on  the  plan  of  the  Dock  Department,  seems  manifestly  necessary. 

104.  A  bill  to  accomplish  this  purpose  is  now  in  course  of  preparation  for  presentation  to  the 
Legislature  at  the  coming  session.  Prompt  legislative  action  will  alone  insure  permanent  improve- 
ments on  North  and  East  rivers  at  an  early  day. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  gentlemen,  yours  respectfully, 

SIMON  STEVENS. 


r 


V 


\ 


